It took our country to be in the middle of disaster for individuals to understand that there is actually an alternative to the Statist Republicans and the Statist Democrats. That alternative is liberty; objectivity. But there is still the problem during the course of one’s education in the objective liberty; accepting the gospel and pledging support to those who only pay lip-service to the truth seems to have been the problem all along. This trend is way too pervasive among those who now claim that their adherence to liberty is what sets them apart from the other drones in American society. I am talking about the Tea Party.

The sad truth is that most people still find the half-truths too easy to accept. It’s apparent to me that this small government, free-market, liberty movement could end in disappointment for many people as their participation is marked by their own willingness to sell out, accept the middle road, and continue to settle on “the lesser of two evils.” In that sense, there will be no real shift in political participation among tea partiers.

In a way, it is great that Glenn Beck is making conservatives think more about the differences between the warmongering NeoCons and the liberty-loving Libertarian faction of conservatism. But I just can’t shake the memory of Glenn Beck The Warmonger.

I have said before in a previous post that the media demagogues like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, in order to be taken seriously by the counter-establishment movement called the Tea Party “must deliver an apology and confession of misguidedness during their years of support for…Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, his thugs and their puppets George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.”

I am just so fucking sick of people not getting it. I can see it now: In 2012 The Republican party will nominate someone like Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney, both of whom will run on a platform of liberty and small government. The former Bush-supporting zombies that make up this movement will cheer their victory and almost immediately look around befuddled when their candidate assumes power and presides over continued government bloating, astronomical increases to the national debt and further erosion of our liberties.

They just don’t get it. The margin of error is too small to allow infiltration from opportunistic journalists and politicians. Haven’t these morons learned that by now?

Ron Paul is the only politician who can claim to have strictly adhered to the principles of liberty, free-markets, constitutionalism and small government for the duration of his service in public office. Not one other politician can claim that, and yet tea partiers are comfortable supporting the self-proclaimed Libertarian Sarah Palin who campaigns for socialists like John McCain (this individual who campaigns for socialists is one of four speakers at Glenn Beck’s upcoming rally).

These people are still willing to vote for the lesser of two evils instead of growing a pair and refusing to be conned again.

Let’s not forget, Sean Hannity consistently laughed at and belittled Ron Paul during the 2008 Republican primary, when it was still politically expedient for Hannity to do so.

Shit, I have plenty of friends who claim to be Libertarians and supporters of small-government and the free market who are still confused enough to “Like” Michelle Malkin on Facebook (They have never admitted–nor will they ever admit to their error in judgment as they cheered on George W. Bush’s tyranny for eight years. Deep down these people are Statists. They just want their Statist party in power–which baffles me since, being average Americans, they get screwed over by both the Statist Democrats and the Statist Republicans.)

Listen to me, MICHELLE MALKIN IS A FUCKING HACK. SHE IS AN OPPORTUNISTIC PIECE OF SHIT. JUST BECAUSE SHE IS ON FOX NEWS DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD SUPPORT HER. You can watch her here telling Republican voters that Ron Paul “does not belong on stage as a legitimate candidate”. Her reasoning for why Ron Paul isn’t a legitimate candidate is that he is a “9/11 truther” (which is a lie, check out how Fox News infers this, it makes me want to vomit) which makes him more of a Democrat. And since the Fox News demographic are Republican drones dressed up as humans they should only vote for who Michelle Malkin thinks are legit Republicans. Thanks for your opinion, and your retarded reasoning, Michelle.

As for Glenn Beck, I have been told that he has apologized for his role in brainwashing the American public into supporting the Iraq war. I have never seen or heard this apology (and I am pretty sure he still supports the men and women who occupy foreign lands, killing locals and ruining the lives of millions of people that have never done any harm to any American). Then I read this blog post from LRC,

At the beginning of his show this morning, Glenn Beck started ripping into the imam that all the talk-radio hosts love to hate, because the imam has (correctly) pointed out that the U.S. has killed many more innocent non-Muslims than al-Qaeda has.

Beck went on to defend the U.S. embargo against Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people during the 1990s, argued that we should have fought the Iraq war “full on” from the beginning (meaning we shouldn’t have been so squeamish — as if “we” were — about killing innocent people), and claimed that the current U.S. government is the only one in the history of the world that has ever fought wars in a manner that avoided killing civilians.

Last year, Beck promoted a rally in Washington to protest the federal government’s taxing and spending. This year, he’s holding a rally to glorify the U.S. military. Can there be any doubt that by the time the Republicans regain control in Washington, Beck and his many followers will be right back where all the conservatives were during the George W. Bush years? Only it will be much worse, because they’ll have much bigger, more powerful government at their disposal, which they will not reduce one bit. And one shudders to think of what the apparent growing extreme, irrational hatred of Muslims may lead to.

Unless, that is, Ron Paul and other true libertarians can steer the Tea Party movement onto the right track before it’s too late.

As a good first step, it’s time for everyone — including some people who should know better — to stop suggesting that Glenn Beck is any sort of libertarian.

Just as I suspected. I have no time for superficial libertarians like Glenn Beck. There are plenty of real libertarians out there.

You can keep your warmongering, torture-supporting, chubby loser. I want no part of him. I’ll keep hanging out with the libertarians who have been right for decades and have always been searching for the truth, not just for the past two years when they saw an opportunity to make a name and a buck for themselves.

A youtube member named TerrorWarrior5000 made this comment on a Ron Paul video. Boobus Americanus levels are off the charts.

If we quit shopping then Al Queda wins the war on terror and will be popping nuculear devices off in American cities everyday for the next thousand years.

It’s no surprise that I agree with Rhys M. Blavier from lastfreevoice that Obama’s campaign platform of “change” has not materialized. But his is an interesting perspective because he actually voted for Obama, and like many former supporters he is experiencing serious buyer’s remorse.

But then again, isn’t it the rule–not the exception–that voters end up feeling betrayed by their heroes in public office? Blavier has an interesting suggestion,

I said in the 1990s that those Republicans who signed the ‘Contract With America‘ should have had class action lawsuits filed against them for BREACH of Contract. Until we hold our politicians accountable for what they say to us when they are running for office, what is their motivation to change their relationship with those that they ask for their votes?

Of course, this wouldn’t solve the fundamental issue of the tyranny of the majority. That is, a politician promises something  to constituents who then see to it that he gets elected based on that promise. If the politician makes good on the promise we sill never address the issue of whether or not the promise itself is moral.

Political action is exclusively about force. In order for politicians to carry out any action, whether they promised to do it or not, requires them to coerce themselves into the lives and dealings of private individuals. This means that a promise in the political realm really amounts to a politician saying, “I promise to steal from this person and give the loot to you.”

Any political action inevitably leaves some in the dust, those would be the individuals in the minority who voted for the losing candidate. Thomas DiLorenzo references Rothbard on this matter, “even the most brutal dictator ultimately bases his power on the opinions that are held by a majority of the population that is under his rule.” Michael S. Rozeff takes it so far as to refuse to vote at all–as voting ultimately grants credibility to a system which operates on the basis of the tyranny of the majority,

I do not vote because I have no intention of imposing my system on you. If my candidate won, I would not want him to impose a system on the minority that it did not want. I don’t want the majority to impose its system on me now, so I cannot be in favor of my imposing my system on them if I win an election.

The cycle of hype-hope-letdown-deceit happens like clockwork in American politics. Even the populist sheep who march lock-step with the two parties would admit this.

The second of the two parties are gearing in the on-deck circle for their crack at delivering another round of hype-hope-letdown-deceit. The very same Republican media front-men who brainwashed us into war and sold us the Patriot Act are now claiming to be small government, constitutionally-sound, tea-partiers.

Blavier conveys my feelings perfectly well,

You have already made yourselves irrelevant to any but those who already agree with you. You spent eight years with your nose shoved up George Bush’s ass and, no matter what he did, you defended him.

I couldn’t agree more. Any republican who now professes to wanting change, small government and freedom does not get a free pass without either one of the following:

1. Clarification from this person that he/she was in strict opposition to the criminal, centralized power-grab by Dick Cheney, Wolfowitz, his thugs and their puppets George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

2. If this person did, in fact, support past Republican power-wielders then they must deliver an apology and confession of misguidedness during their years of support for said criminals (anti-Clintonism does not suffice as proof of anti-elitism as he was almost definitely the least Statist of the lot).

The tea-parties began under the auspices of smaller government and more freedom. It was originally a tax protest. But it has been hijacked by the likes of those who suckled at Bush’s teet while he lied us into war, further destroyed liberty, taxed us heavily through inflation, and continued the policy of crowding out private enterprise and economic freedom.

Those media commentators have dragged their pathetic lemmings with them into the tea-party. They are the ones who cheer at rallies at the mention of Bush and Cheney. I mean, Bush and Cheney? Is that serious?

Aside from them, I am all for a populist anti-government movement and would surely accept an apologetic former Bush-tickler into the fray of truth, objectivity and justice.

Anyway, I think Blavier hits the nail on the head up to this one sentence which raises questions about how he views the political spectrum.

I did what I don’t do… I trusted a politician… and I trusted the Democratic Party to actually change things and push hard to the left in order to shift American back to the middle

To be fair, Blavier is suggesting that “change” from Bush implies a move away from Statism. I have take no issue with his sentiment, but it’s the visual depiction of the political spectrum that bothers me.

One of my biggest pet peeves is the popular notion that fascism and socialism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. They are not. Both brands of oligarchy are equally destructive to freedom and to productivity. They are both equally lacking in morality and justice.

This miscue allows the populace to accept that they will either get a socialist regime or a fascist regime, and that those are your only two options. Independents seem to think that “moving to the middle” is somehow better, as if a hybrid of socialism and fascism is the answer.

As an aside, Obama is the exact same fascist/socialist that Bush was. It can’t even be said that they represent different ends of America’s perverted political spectrum. Let me clue you in on the real political spectrum.

An oligarchy is a system where a class of rulers exert force on the rest of the population, and meddle in the free-will of individuals. In this respect, both socialists and fascists are identical.

Both brands of oligarchy forcefully take from one group and give to another, while taking a cut for themselves.

Both brands of oligarchy destroy economic productivity.

Both brands of oligarchy destroy the moral fabric of society.

The real alternative to diminishing liberty is to increase liberty. The real alternative to a suffocating centralized power is a centralized power that is weak and strictly limited. This always gives rise to strong, decentralized powers in schools, churches, communities, families and ultimately, the individual wields the most power over their own life.

This is the real alternative to the Bush and Obama Statist regimes.

Apart from that slight semantic disagreement, I’m convinced that I need to check out lastfreevoice more often. I have no idea how I even stumbled upon it.